NO. 12-04-00241-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MICHAEL JEROME CLEVELAND,         §                      APPEAL FROM THE 273RD

APPELLANT

V.        §                      JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE   §                      SHELBY COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

            Michael Jerome Cleveland filed a motion for rehearing, which is denied.  The opinion of January 31, 2006 is withdrawn, and the following opinion is substituted in its place.

            Michael Jerome Cleveland appeals his conviction for possession of between four and two hundred grams of phencyclidine, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for eighty years.  Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967) and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).  Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief.  We affirm.

Background

            Appellant was charged with possession of between four and two hundred grams of phencyclidine.  Appellant pleaded “not guilty,” and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.  Ultimately, the jury found Appellant guilty as charged and sentenced him to imprisonment for eighty years.  The trial court sentenced Appellant accordingly, and this appeal followed.

Analysis Pursuant to Anders v. California

            Appellant’s counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders and Gainous.  Appellant’s counsel states that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and is of the opinion that the record reflects no reversible error and that there is no error upon which an appeal can be predicated.  He further relates that he is well acquainted with the facts in this case.  In compliance with Anders, Gainous, and High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), Appellant’s Anders brief presents a chronological summation of the procedural history of the case and further states that Appellant’s counsel is unable to raise any arguable issues for appeal.

            Thereafter, Appellant filed a pro se brief in which he raised the following three issues: (1) legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence; (2) entrapment; and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel.  We have reviewed the record for reversible error and have found none.  See Bledsoe v. State, No. PD-300-04, 2005 WL 3057799, at *3 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 16, 2005).                                                                                                   

Conclusion

            As required by Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), Appellant’s counsel has moved for leave to withdraw. We carried the motion for consideration with our consideration of this matter.  Having done so and finding no reversible error, Appellant’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is hereby granted and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Opinion delivered April 19, 2006.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)